Why radioactive decay dates beyond around 4300 years are invalid

[dad2]

Quote

Understood. So likely the physical laws and makeup of the universe changed ~4300 years ago (about 2300BC)?

That is what I surmise, but remember, not things dated 2300 BC by science. The methods of dating whether tree rings or radioactivity all cease to be accurate even before we reach that time. For example, if trees used to grow, in some cases, for example, in weeks to maturity then all rings they contained would not be rings on a yearly cycle. Therefore if a tree already had, say, 1400 rings when nature changed, and it died, say,  400 years after a change in natural forces and laws, it would have died with 1800 rings. Yet the tree was only about 401 years old. Etc In other words, across the board, the principle that the present is the key to the past would be invalid.

Quote

I understand. In practical terms though, for supposedly very "old" rocks, the vast, vast majority of the "daughter" isotope would have been in there to start off with from the previously created (pre-Babel) world.

For example, Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 49 billion years. That means that very, very little Strontium-87 in rocks is from Rudidium-87 if its only had 4000 years to decay.

That is my guess, yes.

 

Quote

Similar conclusions can be reached for Uranium-238 (half life of 4.5 billion years), Potassium-40 (half-life 1.2 billion years). We therefore have to assume that the vast majority of "daughter" isotopes of these that exist aren't daughters at all - they were there already 4400 years ago when the physics of the world changed, and have had very small quantities added to them since then. 

Great. We understand each other fully, I believe. This is exactly what I thought you were saying.

OK

 

Quote

However, I am still unconvinced that your hypothesis could possibly explain the physical world we see today. My contention here however, is part scientific, and part theological.

Let me give you some examples of my problems with this:

Decay Chains:

Some radioactive elements do not decay immediately to the ultimate daughter element. For example, Uranium doesn't decay immediately to Lead. Rather, there is a long chain of radioactive elements from Uranium to Lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain). 

As a bunch of Uranium (or indeed Thorium) decays, the decay chain is set up. After many millions of years, the decay has been going on long enough that the decay chain stabilises, with the ratios of decay chain elements becoming constant. The ratios of these elements are dependent on their half-life.

No problem. The chain is real, but would not have been a decay chain before there was decay as we know it! Better to just say a pattern or chain that became one engaged in radioactive decay in this present nature.

Quote

We find many, many rocks with stable decay chains - that is, the exact ratio of radioactive elements we expect from their half-lives. This suggests one of two things:

1. The decay has been going on many millions of year.

2. In your scenario, that God created rocks with exactly the amount of (at that time non-radioactive) elements to make it later look like a stable decay chain was in progress to scientists measuring the supposed age of the rock.

No! There was also a chain and reactions and changes happening in the former nature. What it was and how it worked we could not know now. All we know is how it now works. So there was the initial creation and that resulted is stuff with a certain ratio of isotopes etc. Then there was the time of Adam before the fall. Heaven knows what that was like and how reactions happened. Then there was the world after the fall, and presumably up too around the time of Peleg (when the earth was divided). There were reactions and things happening in that nature as well. Then along comes the current nature God set up. We could not say that at that moment, all the isotopes and ratios that existed were 'created' to have exact ratios they then had. The issue is not the ratios but the relationship each isotope THEN had to each other in the former nature. That is unknown. All that is known is the relationship they now have in accordance with the current forces and laws acting upon them. It did not all start at the nature change. There already was rocks, and isotopes in some sort of interaction and balance with each other according to the forces that then existed! The question becomes, do we know what laws and forces existed then? The answer is no.

Quote

 

Multiple Agreeing Dating Methods:

Given your hypothesis, there is no reason at all that multiple dating methods should ever agree in a rock, because the amount of parent and daughter element in a rock are completely coincidental (since SR-87 didn't originate from Rb-87, Pb-206 didn't come from U-238, etc.)

Yet, using completely independent methods of radiometric dating, we very often find remarkable agreement. Are we to believe that this is coincidence (almost impossible statistically!) or are we to believe that God created the rocks this way (such that they would look extremely old when analysed by scientific methods, when really they are very young).

Yes there is a perfect reason. As explained reactions were still going on based on the forces acting upon the materials at that time. ALL your methods make the same mistake. There is no weird differences in ratios expected. The difference is in the meaning of the ratios and what they were doing THEN. We don't know, but they were doing something! Therefore all that changed is what they were doing. You still read all ratios as if they represent the present nature. You forget creation, the pre fall world, and the different nature of the pre flood and shortly post flood world.

Quote

When you actually look at the methods of dating themselves, you find once again that God must have gone to great lengths to set the rocks up to look old. For example, in Rb-Sr dating, God must have formed rocks with the exact ratios of Rb-87, Sr-87 AND non-radiogenic Sr-86 to form old-looking isochrons. This is exceptionally precise work.

Totally false. The only thing that makes them look old to people is the belief that the presentnaturedunnit. That would be the delusion Satan went to great lengths to try to make it all look old. Don't blame God, we should have believed Him all along.

Quote

Or in the case of K-Ar dating, God must have put Ar-40 in rocks to begin with and trapped this Argon, even though it doesn't occur *anywhere* else in nature. The only known source of Ar-40 is from the decay of K-40, and we ONLY find it in rocks with K-40 (because it isn't naturally occuring).

If it was important for God to trap Ar-40 in rocks, why did he only trap it in rocks that had K-40? Why do we find this non-naturally occuring gas only in rocks with "parent element" K-40?

No. Why could argon not have been a part of the former processes? You assume that because it now is formed a certain way, that must be how it got there. Who says that K-40 was not involved with argon in the former nature? How would we know what used to produce what? We assume that because something is NOW produced a certain way

Quote

While the questions above are partially scientific, they are actually theological. The basic analysis is that the rocks we find either have experienced very long periods of radioactive decay, or have been created to look like they have experienced very long periods of radioactive decay.

False. They do not look that way at all to me. Only by adopting the 'all things continue as they were' belief would they look that way to you. The trickster part comes in with the belief you accepted in how you look at creation. I consider that you look at it in a religious way, and therefore you can't really learn or come to a knowledge of the truth.

Quote

This is different from creating things to look *mature*. Creating Adam as a human adult is making him mature. Creating Adam with a scar on his knee where he fell as a child, even though he was never a child, is creating him to look old. It is creating a false history for Adam. 

There was no scar. Trying to portray a little white spot Adam got from kneeling to hug Eve as a scar would be the deception. Trying to say he was created with it. Likewise, trying to say that materials produced by another process (as a result of other forces acting on them) were produced by decay would be the deception.

Quote

It is the same for the physical evidence we see. And that brings me to the ultimate question: is God capable of falsehood or deception? Could He trick us in this way? Can God lie, or deceive? 

The Bible gives us an answer of course: we know that Satan is the father of lies, and that God is Truth and Life, as we have experienced Him in His only begotten son Jesus.

God never told us that radioactive decay chains existed pre flood! He told us He created it all. Reading patterns as if He did not is the deception and lie.

Quote

P.S. I could have used a third (and equally compelling) case - of what we see in the galaxy and universe. For example, we see supernova explosions where, charting the speed of the debris and direction of the explosion, we can conclude that the explosion must have happened many millions of years ago.

You cannot chart anything in the universe that involves time unless time out there existed as we know it here! You neither observed anything for millions of years, nor anything out of the area of the solar system. The furthest probe is less than a light day away. What you could say, is something like. 'we see a little light out there we call a star, that takes so many years as measured by our time and space here to move in space out there' Ha

Quote

But of course, in your proposed universe, this is false. God created the debris mid-flight, to make it look like there had been an explosion many millions of years ago that, in actual fact, did not occur.

No no no. It only looks to man in his tiny fishbowl looking out that things take so much time to move in deep space. That is projecting once again, our realities onto the unknown.

Quote

Again, God has created "theatre" - a movie show in the sky to make everything look very ancient when in fact the universe is very young

It does not look out it looks wondrous. The only way it could look old is IF we adopted the belief set that deluded so called science uses.

Quote

- the supernova never happened.

Yes, an event happened. How far away it was is not known. (man uses earth time and space as if it represents the universe) You cannot claim light traveled millions of years out there. Even parallax measuring is useless. That involves time as well. WE take one line of the three based on this solar system area. (for example how far the earth moves in six months around the sun) then we use that as a line and add two other lines as if they all equate in time and space! The absolute most I could grant you as known is less than a light day away! Those are your firm limits. Even that is being generous, because of the anomalies the Voyageur encountered but I will grant it to you for the sake of argument for now.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

You say you think trees created in the garden of Eden would have rings. I am wondering however about the composition of those rings.

Would the rings have been uniform in composition, width and color?  Maybe....maybe not.  It's impossible to tell either way.  There is much we are told and much we are not told.  I seem to remember Job getting royally told off by God when he questioned things.  There are evidences to support most false claims if you interpret the data the way you want it to read.

I have no problem with someone believing in long ages, or even in believing that there may have been a time gap between verse one and verse two.  I DO have a problem with someone attacking the Scriptures and positing their unprovable opinion as fact.  The words of God are facts.  How we read them is opinion.  We have the Holy Spirit to help us with interpretation.  However, if it results in teaching new doctrine as fact it becomes false teaching.

Here are the issues:

The seven day work week has no other model than the creation week.  It's not based on months, years, seasons or positions of the star.  It is as God ordained it so.

In Exodus 20:11, God inscribes on stone tablets that He created the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh.  It's hard to argue with the direct words of God.

For those who believe Genesis 1:2 begins a restoration, what could have existed prior?  Water covered the planet until day 3.  Until day three, there was no life on the planet and nothing but water on its surface.  What could have existed that would be replaced prior to any restoration?  Plant and tree live came about on day 3.  The sun, moon and stars came about on day 4.  Fish and birds came about on day 5.  Land animals and man came about on day 6.  The sequence of creation disallows evolution or long ages.

It is not impossible that we are not alone.  It is not impossible that the stars meant for our use; for signs and for seasons; are those within our galaxy.  Could there be worlds beyond?  Certainly.  The Bible is written from the perspective of the earth.  When God was finished with this creation He said it was very good.  God, however, is an eternal being.  He had billions of years to create other worlds; to created different life forms if it so pleased Him.  We don't know what He didn't tell us, only what He did.

Intelligent people can discuss things in a rational manner.  False teachers are dangerous zealots.  

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Dear @dad2,

I won't reply to your whole post point-by-point, because fundamentally you have made a similar point throughout.

As I understand it, you are saying:

The old processes and physics of the world (which are unknown and could have been anything) just so happen to have produced all the evidence we see today that, when transposed to the present (new) physics of the world, just so happen to look exactly like very long period of radioactive decay has occured. 

This argument can be extended to any process or observation. Sure, it looks like the debris from a supernova has been travelling for millions of years, but only IF you accept the current physics that time = distance / speed. etc. etc.

Of course, this is a contingent possibility. But how different is it to saying "God made it look that way"?

According to you, totally different physical processes just so happened to form decay chains in exactly the same ratios and elements that we see in present nuclear physics. And just so happened to link elements now linked by radioactive decay in some other unknown way, but just as it happens always in a way that makes the earth look really old and radiometric dates from independent methods agree. 

Uranium-238 has over 20 decay products today. In the old physics Uranium didn't decay. But as it happens, it still was somehow connected to all these decay products, and produced them (albeit over much short periods of time) in the exact quantities we would expect from radioactive decay, finally terminating in Lead (the most radioactively stable element in the new physics of the world), but ONLY the lead isotope that is now (in the new physics) associated with decay of U238 (Pb-206 - btw, Lead has 37 unstable isotopes and 4 stable).

In the zircon grains where Uranium-238 has been present, we see what appears to be millions of years of accumulated radiation damage. But don't be fooled - don't believe those lying eyes and uniformitarian assumptions! This damage is from a totally different, non-radioactive process, that just so happened to damage and discolour these grains in an identical way to long-term radiation damage today.

Potassium, a highly reactive metal, was somehow connected chemically or physically to Argon, an inert gas, and somehow produced Argon around it, though not through radioactive decay. And only Potassium-40 has this quality (K-39 and K-41 aren't somehow linked to Argon), and then only Argon-40 (not ANY of the other 25 known isotopes of Argon). Pure coincidence, nothing to see here.

And yes, that distant supernova *looks* like it happened millions of years ago from the speed of the debris and distance to the centre, but don't be so hasty. You don't know if all the debris was slowed down a few thousand years ago. In the old physics, there might have been no reason why this debris couldn't have been moving close to or faster than light speed - relativity only exists in the new Physics.

You say there's a massive meteor cratar in the Chicxulub peninsula in Mexico from a meteor large enough to wipe out most life on earth, along with shocked quartz typical of an impact and worldwide Iridium anomaly typical of a massive meteor strike, and a huge discontinuity in the fossil record at the supposed same "time". Sure. But how do you know that, in the old physics, supposed meteor cratars didn't form naturally from some other process, along with shocked quartz, and through some other (now unknown) physical process distribute Iridium across the globe?

I assure you, I'm not trying to make fun of you @dad2. I'm trying to communicate how close, indeed identical, your proposition is to saying "God just made it look that way". The ludicrous number of coincidences involved in the "old physics" making things in the "new physics" look millions or billions of years old are countless. I could write many, many more paragraphs similar to the above talking about loads of other natural, measurable phenomena that all point towards an older age and real events in the long past, and that would involve the same ridiculous number and type of coincidences to explain in your hypothesis.

But I think I've made my point of why I think your hypothesis is essentially the same as saying that God made it look that way, and thus calling God a liar.

All the best,

I

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Dear @RV_Wizard,

Thank you for your interesting and well-thought-through reply.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Would the rings have been uniform in composition, width and color?  Maybe....maybe not.  It's impossible to tell either way.  There is much we are told and much we are not told. 

You are right, there is much we are not told. And it's almost impossible to say how uniform the tree rings would be in Eden.

I suppose my point in bringing up river varves was to imagine whether several independent lines of evidence could point to a false conclusion about Eden.

In the case of varves, as it happens, I don't believe there would be any in the rivers coming out of Eden. Varves are layers of annual or bi-annual sedimentary deposition - often noticed because they are different colours depending on the contents of sedimented layed down in Autumn or Winter vs Spring or Summer. Since there had been zero seasons prior, and no organic matter to change sedimentary deposition, there should not be varves in the rivers coming out of Eden. 

But if there were varves, and the tree rings in Eden were not uniform, there should be no correlation between them in terms of climatic analysis. Because this would point to a false history of climate that quite simply never existed or happened. 

As you see in my post above to Dad2, I have pointed out many different, and wholly independent, lines of evidence pointing to a very old earth with various events happening in that earth, and all of them agree. For me, there is so much evidence pointing to the self-same conclusion that I can draw only one of two conclusions: that the earth is very old, or that God has deliberately fabricated a lot of corresponding lines of evidence in this regard. Since God does not "fabricate" anything, the former must be true.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The seven day work week has no other model than the creation week.  It's not based on months, years, seasons or positions of the star.  It is as God ordained it so.

Correct. Although a day to God can be rather longer than a day to us. But I do agree that God's own word is the basis for our week.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

In Exodus 20:11, God inscribes on stone tablets that He created the heavens and earth and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh.  It's hard to argue with the direct words of God.

Indeed, agreed. However, 24-hour periods (what we think of as days) are due to the earth's rotation and the relative position of the sun to earth. But the sun didn't exist until day 4. 

God may think of days in a very different way - or may simply be using days as a human analogy that has very different meaning for a divine being who does not live on a planet under a sun, but in Heaven, and is the source of eternal light.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The sequence of creation disallows evolution or long ages.

I only think that's the case if you take it fully literally, from a human point of view.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible is written from the perspective of the earth.  When God was finished with this creation He said it was very good.  God, however, is an eternal being.  He had billions of years to create other worlds; to created different life forms if it so pleased Him.  We don't know what He didn't tell us, only what He did.

Correct, exactly my point. Nor are we entitled to know everything from God. He can, essentially, do as he pleases.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Intelligent people can discuss things in a rational manner.  False teachers are dangerous zealots.  

Indeed.

[dad2]

Quote

As I understand it, you are saying:

The old processes and physics of the world (which are unknown and could have been anything) just so happen to have produced all the evidence we see today that, when transposed to the present (new) physics of the world, just so happen to look exactly like very long period of radioactive decay has occured. 

There is no 'just so happens' There are forces of nature God puts in place to make reactions happen. If those forces are changed, then the forces then act on already existing materials that were acted upon in another way by other laws and forces. Of course if you look at it from the present, ant attribute all the ratios to this present state, it will look a certain way to you.

 If a rock already contained parent and daughter material when decay as we know it today started, then only to YOU would it look as if a long period in this nature happened. That is because of your chosen belief set that you plaster and paint all you see with.

 

Quote

This argument can be extended to any process or observation. Sure, it looks like the debris from a supernova has been travelling for millions of years, but only IF you accept the current physics that time = distance / speed. etc. etc.

For someone claiming to comprehend here, you miss just about everything by a country mile. Time is not physics by the way. Relativity is a way to try and explain time here in our time and space. Looking at light, or 'debris' moving in deep space does not look like millions of years at all. It looks like something moving. How fast that is we can not know. ALL our experience and measures are based here inside our little fishbowl of the area of the solar system. Here, light must move at a certain speed.

Quote

Of course, this is a contingent possibility. But how different is it to saying "God made it look that way"?

God made it look beautiful and wondrous. When you strain at a little light speck moving in deep space, the ONLY thing that makes it seem inside your own mind that it is moving at a certain speed for a certain time is beliefs! If time and indeed space did not exist as we know it here exactly in that far universe, then your concept of how much time is involved out there in the movement is a joke. So what we would accurately say here is not that God tricked you, but that Satan deceived by trying to make it look a certain way in your mind.

Quote

According to you, totally different physical processes just so happened to form decay chains in exactly the same ratios and elements that we see in present nuclear physics. And just so happened to link elements now linked by radioactive decay in some other unknown way, but just as it happens always in a way that makes the earth look really old and radiometric dates from independent methods agree. 

False. There was no decay chain if nature was different in the past. There was a reaction chain of some sort. You want to attribute all reactions (while at the same time ignoring creation as well) to this temporary present nature.

Quote

 

 

 

Uranium-238 has over 20 decay products today. In the old physics Uranium didn't decay. But as it happens, it still was somehow connected to all these decay products, and produced them (albeit over much short periods of time) in the exact quantities we would expect from radioactive decay, finally terminating in Lead (the most radioactively stable element in the new physics of the world), but ONLY the lead isotope that is now (in the new physics) associated with decay of U238 (Pb-206 - btw, Lead has 37 unstable isotopes and 4 stable).

In the zircon grains where Uranium-238 has been present, we see what appears to be millions of years of accumulated radiation damage. But don't be fooled - don't believe those lying eyes and uniformitarian assumptions! This damage is from a totally different, non-radioactive process, that just so happened to damage and discolour these grains in an identical way to long-term radiation damage today.

Potassium, a highly reactive metal, was somehow connected chemically or physically to Argon, an inert gas, and somehow produced Argon around it, though not through radioactive decay. And only Potassium-40 has this quality (K-39 and K-41 aren't somehow linked to Argon), and then only Argon-40 (not ANY of the other 25 known isotopes of Argon). Pure coincidence, nothing to see here.

It does not matter what 'HAS this quality' now. Or that things WERE 'highly reactive'.  If something exists then it got here somehow. We can rule out present nature decay for most of it. So who are you to ignorantly assume that a former nature would not have different processes that resulted in argon. How something reacts today is not an indication that it reacted that way in a DIFFERENT nature! Even the idea of being inert might not apply in a different past. Things are inert NOW, they react a certain way NOW etc. So what? That tells us little or nothing about how they would react under different forces and laws. The only 'coincidence' in in your head and a result of your beliefs that present nature explains all things.

 

Looking at a bit of an explanation in a study involving radiation 'damage' I saw this

"The transformation of an initially crystalline material into an amorphous state due to corpuscular irradiation is commonly referred to as “amorphisation” or “metamictisation” [1,2,3]. In nature, the accumulation of self-irradiation induced structural damage is created mainly during α-decay events in the ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, and ²³⁸U decay chains"

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/10/1/83

 

The question arises, in the different former nature, was all of the material in question indeed 'crystalline'? If so, how do you know? Hopefully not by looking at nature now! Look above and see that when they say 'in nature' they refer to 'in present nature'.

 

Quote

And yes, that distant supernova *looks* like it happened millions of years ago from the speed of the debris and distance to the centre, but don't be so hasty. You don't know if all the debris was slowed down a few thousand years ago. In the old physics, there might have been no reason why this debris couldn't have been moving close to or faster than light speed - relativity only exists in the new Physics.

False. Only in your belief system and mind would it look that way. What we actually see is that light in an explosive event in far away space is that light takes so much time as we mark time on earth. It takes, say, 9 earth months to get to the edges of the ring or etc. You take that to mean that because light in this solar system and area takes so much time to move here, that it must also take the same time to move out there. Prove it!

Quote

You say there's a massive meteor cratar in the Chicxulub peninsula in Mexico from a meteor large enough to wipe out most life on earth, along with shocked quartz typical of an impact and worldwide Iridium anomaly typical of a massive meteor strike, and a huge discontinuity in the fossil record at the supposed same "time". Sure. But how do you know that, in the old physics, supposed meteor cratars didn't form naturally from some other process, along with shocked quartz, and through some other (now unknown) physical process distribute Iridium across the globe?

The fountains of the deep opened up in the flood, bringing waters up (many assume violently and quickly) to flood the planet. In this case we might say it was an 'impact' from down TO up! It also may have shocked quartz. So to start with here prove the direction of the impact was from above?  The flood waters came from two sources. From the heavens above (windows of heaven) as well as below the planet. Science tells us iridium comes from where? The exact same two places! So having iridium is nothing that helps your belief system! The extinction also...obviously! There are a few scenarios for a crater in the true past/bible/flood construct. It may be a remnant of a large fount of the deep. Perhaps a lot of debris shot high into the air and some fell back. Who knows? Your scenario is weak and anti bible.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

There is no 'just so happens' There are forces of nature God puts in place to make reactions happen.

Well, there is a "just so happens" there, isn't there? It "just so happens" that in a totally different set of physical laws, one in which radioactivity might not even occur at all, the reactions and things that do happen just so happen to look exactly like the product of millions and billions of years of radioactive decay when transposed to the new physics.

That's a very big coincidence, because you really have to go some to look that way. It's not just one or two wee things. It's literally hundreds of, often independent, pieces of evidence that look for all the world like millions of years worth of radioactive decay. All produced, by complete coincidence, in a totally different physical universe for unconnected reasons - and then when the physics flip to our modern universe, perfectly in place to look like the earth is really old.

Sounds a bit like someone wanting to make it look that way to me!

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

then only to YOU would it look as if a long period in this nature happened

I dunno man, it's fooled quite a few people eh!

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

Time is not physics by the way

Well, it is a physical constant. I mean, no offense, but I read physics at Uni - I ought to know that time is part of physics...

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

How fast that is we can not know

Actually, we can know how fast things are moving in space, and there are several ways of doing this, the most popular being measuring "redshift".

And, we can measure distances in deep space too, and the measure is through pretty simple optical physics and geometry.

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

If time and indeed space did not exist as we know it here exactly in that far universe, then your concept of how much time is involved out there in the movement is a joke.

Which was my original point exactly. God changed loads of physical constants and laws, and the result is a universe that just to happens to look like a really old one in the new set of laws, but in the old set (if only we knew!) it'd look really young.

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

False. There was no decay chain if nature was different in the past. There was a reaction chain of some sort.

I know, I get it. And it just so happens, in the new physics, to look exactly like a decay chain, in exactly the same quantities and ratios we would expect, and it just so happens to agree in apparent age with other "so-called" radioactive decay (which never happened it was just some other kind of reaction in the old world that happened much faster). It's all a massive, massive coincidence - nothing to see here!

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

So who are you to ignorantly assume that a former nature would not have different processes that resulted in argon

Completely agree. Who knows whether there were even electrons in the old physics right? I'm just saying though, it now *looks* like radiogenic argon of exactly the type that is formed through radioactive decay. And it's now inert, so there's no reason for it to even be on earth other than radioactive decay (obviously unless you know your gnostic truths about the old physics - in which case it all makes sense and is just a huge coincidence what it looks like now).

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

The question arises, in the different former nature, was all of the material in question indeed 'crystalline'?

Who knows! All I know is that the zircons as they are now look awfully like they have billions of years worth of radiation tracks and damage. Clearly there was a process, completely unrelated to radiation, in the old physics that formed these in days. Who knows how?

But all I need to know is that it's all a big coincidence that the result, in the new physics, looks like millions of years of radiation damage. To hell with my uniformitarian assumptions, o ye of little faith!

On 4/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, dad2 said:

In this case we might say it was an 'impact' from down TO up!

Cratars form in the direction of the impact. But hey, that's only in the new physics. You never know back then right!

It's all good though, there's little point discussing further. My points remain entirely valid. 

[dad2]

Quote

Well, there is a "just so happens" there, isn't there? It "just so happens" that in a totally different set of physical laws, one in which radioactivity might not even occur at all, the reactions and things that do happen just so happen to look exactly like the product of millions and billions of years of radioactive decay when transposed to the new physics.

God changes things properly. A bit like how forces act on everything. So everything changes when nature changes. It is no surprise that if God changes nature that everything is affected. Men's lifespans, plant growth etc. To look at ratios as if they got here because of this present nature exclusively will result in looking at every aspect and material that changed as if it did not, and imagining separate miracles were needed.  (rather than a change across the board) So every time to look at a ratio you are shocked that some other rock isotope ration could be the same, or work the same. As if that were some fluke or prearranged deception. You also have no basis to your claim. If something has a ratio of isotopes that woulda coulda shoulda taken a million years if formed by decay in this nature, it simply tells us how much of this was here at the onset of our present state. You imagine that it is some weird coincidence because daughter isotopes are now being made. That does not look like something made by billions of years of present nature decay at all! Only to firm died in the wool believers that this present nature was always around.

Quote

That's a very big coincidence, because you really have to go some to look that way. It's not just one or two wee things. It's literally hundreds of, often independent, pieces of evidence that look for all the world like millions of years worth of radioactive decay. All produced, by complete coincidence, in a totally different physical universe for unconnected reasons - and then when the physics flip to our modern universe, perfectly in place to look like the earth is really old.

Everything was affected. So the pattern of creation, then the former state, then this present nature has to exist in all those things. The issue in not how many things (millions not thousands of things) were affected! The issue is your belief set used when interpreting those patterns. Nothing else.

Quote

Sounds a bit like someone wanting to make it look that way to me!

Precisely what is happening. You did not believe the Genesis account of God and embraced the lie of Satan that God did not reaaallly do what He said. Like the serpent told Eve in the garden, that God was lying. She should have believed God instead. The way it looks to you is the way you chose to believe.

Quote

I dunno man, it's fooled quite a few people eh!

Yes, even me for a long time. I assumed what we were taught must be true. Comparing that with God's word, and what is actually known it became clear that it is solely a matter of two beliefs to choose from.

Quote

Well, it is a physical constant. I mean, no offense, but I read physics at Uni - I ought to know that time is part of physics...

No. They actually do not even know what time is if you dig into it. They have theories about what space time is. Those theories have no relevance outside of the  solar system and area that we know. No one has rode a spaceship a hundred million light years away in space and passed someone riding one the other way for example. They may have put a clock on a plane on earth and noticed that here our time changes a bit.

Quote

Actually, we can know how fast things are moving in space, and there are several ways of doing this, the most popular being measuring "redshift".

That is actually false as well. The things that may shift light in deep space need not be the same things that shift light here near earth. Period. One possible example, for the sake of illustration (as opposed to some precise claim of what is happening) could be that time itself affect light. The space and time and whatever else is unseen out there could affect how much time is involved in light moving and indeed might cause a shift. As usual, all we have is fishbowl philosophy here where you try to impose realities from the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area out onto the UNKNOWN.

Quote

And, we can measure distances in deep space too, and the measure is through pretty simple optical physics and geometry.

I guess that is evidence you do not read posts or that you do not comprehend what you read due to heavy beliefs. I already explained that. Parallax measure involves on measure here in the area of this earth and solar system. So one line of that triangle  represents time and space here, not just distance when you draw other lines from it to deep space. In other words IF time and space were the same all the way to the star out there, THEN the measure would be accurate for distance as well. Additionally, unless time existed as we know it all the way to the star, even if the distance were correct, it could take almost no time for light from there to get here! No matter how we look at it you are talking from ignorance and belief alone.

Quote

I know, I get it. And it just so happens, in the new physics, to look exactly like a decay chain, in exactly the same quantities and ratios we would expect, and it just so happens to agree in apparent age with other "so-called" radioactive decay (which never happened it was just some other kind of reaction in the old world that happened much faster). It's all a massive, massive coincidence - nothing to see here!

It does not look like a decay chain (unless one were submerged in a belief system that thought it was) Not at all! It looks like ratios of stuff that are now in a relationship based on the laws that now exist. Any other set of forces that used to exist obviously would have also resulted in a relationship between those same materials. One example is man. We used too live well over nine centuries. Suddenly around the time of Peleg (where the change happened probably) life spans plummeted to something like 230 years or whatever. So yes, men still walked and had bones and looked like they used to in large measure. But things had changed inside due to new forces acting on their bodies and minds. From that new standard of living only about 230 years, it then dropped over a fairly short time even further till it reached today's life spans. Abraham lived for example I think it was 175 years. Moses 120 years. David probably closer to 70 years. They say Abraham and Noah lived at the same time when Abraham was young.

 So you do not get to look at how a human body operates now, and is affected by radioactivity etc and claim it was the same since creation. Nor do you get to claim it is some 'massive coincidence' that man still has blood and bones and eyes etc. Like the ratios, we existed before the nature change.

 One exception to the sudden change in life spans was people born before Peleg's time. Noah for example and Shem. Their lives were somewhat longer than normal for the time after the change.

Quote

Completely agree. Who knows whether there were even electrons in the old physics right? I'm just saying though, it now *looks* like radiogenic argon of exactly the type that is formed through radioactive decay. And it's now inert, so there's no reason for it to even be on earth other than radioactive decay (obviously unless you know your gnostic truths about the old physics - in which case it all makes sense and is just a huge coincidence what it looks like now).

The fact that some substances exist that are not reactive in this nature should be no surprise. What you should have said is 'there is no reason now, in this present nature, for it to exist'! Why should there be for all things? Not all things are a product of this nature! Therefore they need no have a reason to exist here. Looking at the example of man again, there are even a few things that some claim have no great reason to exist in us! Ever consider that they did have a reason in the former nature??

Also, it is bogus to apply the term Gnostic to knowing about the former state and nature of earth, since no one knows what it was! That is the point, we don't know. Science presumes it was the one way!

Quote

Cratars form in the direction of the impact. But hey, that's only in the new physics. You never know back then right!

?

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/images/thumb/ChicxulubZoneOfCenotes.jpg

 

Explain how we know the direction of impact here exactly? If you are correct, fine. We can look at the other explanation of how it did fall as debris. In either case, no one needs your particular belief. But since you made a claim, I wait to see your specs and evidence.

[teddyv]

50 minutes ago, dad2 said:

God changes things properly. A bit like how forces act on everything. So everything changes when nature changes. It is no surprise that if God changes nature that everything is affected. Men's lifespans, plant growth etc. To look at ratios as if they got here because of this present nature exclusively will result in looking at every aspect and material that changed as if it did not, and imagining separate miracles were needed.  (rather than a change across the board) So every time to look at a ratio you are shocked that some other rock isotope ration could be the same, or work the same. As if that were some fluke or prearranged deception. You also have no basis to your claim. If something has a ratio of isotopes that woulda coulda shoulda taken a million years if formed by decay in this nature, it simply tells us how much of this was here at the onset of our present state. You imagine that it is some weird coincidence because daughter isotopes are now being made. That does not look like something made by billions of years of present nature decay at all! Only to firm died in the wool believers that this present nature was always around.

Everything was affected. So the pattern of creation, then the former state, then this present nature has to exist in all those things. The issue in not how many things (millions not thousands of things) were affected! The issue is your belief set used when interpreting those patterns. Nothing else.

Precisely what is happening. You did not believe the Genesis account of God and embraced the lie of Satan that God did not reaaallly do what He said. Like the serpent told Eve in the garden, that God was lying. She should have believed God instead. The way it looks to you is the way you chose to believe.

Yes, even me for a long time. I assumed what we were taught must be true. Comparing that with God's word, and what is actually known it became clear that it is solely a matter of two beliefs to choose from.

No. They actually do not even know what time is if you dig into it. They have theories about what space time is. Those theories have no relevance outside of the  solar system and area that we know. No one has rode a spaceship a hundred million light years away in space and passed someone riding one the other way for example. They may have put a clock on a plane on earth and noticed that here our time changes a bit.

That is actually false as well. The things that may shift light in deep space need not be the same things that shift light here near earth. Period. One possible example, for the sake of illustration (as opposed to some precise claim of what is happening) could be that time itself affect light. The space and time and whatever else is unseen out there could affect how much time is involved in light moving and indeed might cause a shift. As usual, all we have is fishbowl philosophy here where you try to impose realities from the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area out onto the UNKNOWN.

I guess that is evidence you do not read posts or that you do not comprehend what you read due to heavy beliefs. I already explained that. Parallax measure involves on measure here in the area of this earth and solar system. So one line of that triangle  represents time and space here, not just distance when you draw other lines from it to deep space. In other words IF time and space were the same all the way to the star out there, THEN the measure would be accurate for distance as well. Additionally, unless time existed as we know it all the way to the star, even if the distance were correct, it could take almost no time for light from there to get here! No matter how we look at it you are talking from ignorance and belief alone.

It does not look like a decay chain (unless one were submerged in a belief system that thought it was) Not at all! It looks like ratios of stuff that are now in a relationship based on the laws that now exist. Any other set of forces that used to exist obviously would have also resulted in a relationship between those same materials. One example is man. We used too live well over nine centuries. Suddenly around the time of Peleg (where the change happened probably) life spans plummeted to something like 230 years or whatever. So yes, men still walked and had bones and looked like they used to in large measure. But things had changed inside due to new forces acting on their bodies and minds. From that new standard of living only about 230 years, it then dropped over a fairly short time even further till it reached today's life spans. Abraham lived for example I think it was 175 years. Moses 120 years. David probably closer to 70 years. They say Abraham and Noah lived at the same time when Abraham was young.

 So you do not get to look at how a human body operates now, and is affected by radioactivity etc and claim it was the same since creation. Nor do you get to claim it is some 'massive coincidence' that man still has blood and bones and eyes etc. Like the ratios, we existed before the nature change.

 One exception to the sudden change in life spans was people born before Peleg's time. Noah for example and Shem. Their lives were somewhat longer than normal for the time after the change.

The fact that some substances exist that are not reactive in this nature should be no surprise. What you should have said is 'there is no reason now, in this present nature, for it to exist'! Why should there be for all things? Not all things are a product of this nature! Therefore they need no have a reason to exist here. Looking at the example of man again, there are even a few things that some claim have no great reason to exist in us! Ever consider that they did have a reason in the former nature??

Also, it is bogus to apply the term Gnostic to knowing about the former state and nature of earth, since no one knows what it was! That is the point, we don't know. Science presumes it was the one way!

?

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/images/thumb/ChicxulubZoneOfCenotes.jpg

 

Explain how we know the direction of impact here exactly? If you are correct, fine. We can look at the other explanation of how it did fall as debris. In either case, no one needs your particular belief. But since you made a claim, I wait to see your specs and evidence.

In summary:  Nothing it knowable and reality is unreliable. 

[dad2]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

In summary:  Nothing it knowable and reality is unreliable. 

No, He told us a lot about the past. The trick is believing it. As for so called science on origin issues, yes, they are well and truly hooped. Not able to know. Their stories are based on lies and not just unreliable, but reliably wrong. Bank on it.

[The Barbarian]

On 4/12/2024 at 12:27 AM, dad2 said:

It does not matter what radioactivity does since it is a feature of THIS present nature.

If you get to call in unscriptural miracles to fix the problems with your new doctrines, than any story become equally plausible.

Try to work with what you actually have.